Go Orange

Anthony Castro, R.I.P.

A tribute to a friend and an athlete

By Jim Buzinski
Outsports

It's hard to write about a friend who has just died, but people need to know about Anthony Castro, killed in a crash in the Southern California mountains on Jan. 21. He was 19.

Anthony was that rarest of people – an athlete out to his team. In Anthony's case, he was out in high school to his football and wrestling teams, our two most macho team sports. It took guts to take such a step but Anthony never thought too much about it – he was not ashamed of who he was and if you were uncomfortable, that was your problem.

My favorite Anthony story involves his senior year of wrestling. A fellow wrestler used to make snide homophobic remarks to Anthony.

Rather than file a complaint with the school, Anthony addressed the problem head on – he challenged the wrestler to a put-up-or-shut-up match. It didn't take very long, as Anthony had the guy pinned in about 20 seconds. That stopped the heckling and Anthony told me the guy quit the team.

Anthony was not a student in some L.A. Westside hotbed of tolerance. Rather, he lived in Banning, two hours east of L.A. in the desert and a rather "red" part of a very "blue" state. Being out in Banning, a pretty rough place, takes some big cojones.

I first met Anthony in November 2005, when I received an e-mail from him about playing for our L.A. Motion gay flag football team.

"Hi, I'm Anthony. I live in Banning, California. I am a gay athlete and still in high school. … With no other gay jocks, I feel like I am the only one and it sucks cause I don't know any other guys that are gay and like me. I play football, basketball, track, cheerleading and swim. I have been playing football since I was five. I am the tight end for my high school, free safety and kickoff and punt returner. I don't know why I told you this but there you go. LOL. You guys are the closest to me and I figured if I was going to be moving down there, I should find out about things that are going on what are the age limits that you guys need to join."

At first I thought the letter was a prank – the odds of an openly gay high school player in Banning seemed remote and Outsports does get the crank e-mail from time to time. But I wrote him back with sincerity and was surprised when he showed up, as promised, a few days later. He had a build more like a linebacker than quarterback, but in just a few plays I could tell he had great skills. I could also tell he was a bit awed to be playing football with a bunch of openly gay guys.

"It was really fun," he wrote me a few days after his first game. "I told my wrestling coach that we better not have practice on Saturdays. He said why, so I told him I joined a gay flag football team. So he said don't worry we won't. So he was cool and I like it because it is fun playing with all you guys."

We then saw him virtually every week from then on and he showed a commitment that is rare. He was always the first to arrive despite driving two hours to get there. He especially liked the fact that he could be himself, flirt if he wanted and not have to worry about it. He took a liking to one of our players, JP, and they used to kid each other all the time about JP being a senior citizen (32 looks like that to an 18-year-old).

"Hey, Mr. Hit Young Guy in the Nuts," he wrote JP after one game when JP guarded him and things got a bit rough. "Well, it was fun playing football, even though you hit me in the nuts. By the way, they still hurt like hell. Hope your boyfriend hits you in the nuts or something."

Like most single 18-year-olds, Anthony was always on the prowl and would write me "woe is me" e-mails as he pined for someone new who showed up at football. "I am not going to let him score on me unless it's in bed," he wrote about one lust object who was guarding him one week. His e-mails were always a highlight for me and I felt like a big brother to him.

He also had a turbulent upbringing. He told me his mom rejected him for a time because he was gay, even though she lives with a woman (I never figured that one out). He wrote about seeing his dad in jail and having a relative with AIDS. He wound up living with a legal guardian, Phil, who had a tremendously positive influence on him and was a key support for Anthony on and off the field.

Football was always a refuge for him, even as he endured tragedy. "I am not doing so good," he wrote me last winter. "Two of my friends were shot and killed 2 days ago and another friend was jumped badly. I don't know what the world is coming to these days. I have been trying to not think about it, but it is hard. I mean, those are guys I helped out and had them play football to stay out of trouble. I wish I could have been there for them. The guys came from rough lives and they told me playing football helped them out a lot to not think about drugs or anything. I am a little sad. Hopefully football will help take my mind off it."

One day at football last spring, he introduced me to a friend he had brought, Cody, a handsome, athletic 24-year-old. "He's straight," Anthony whispered to me. Minutes later, I saw Anthony lying on the sidelines in Cody's lap, soaking up the SoCal sun. Straight, my ass! Cody was Anthony's new boyfriend and I could tell he was beaming. They were perfect for each other and quickly fell in love.

I knew things were serious when Anthony called me one Saturday to say he was going to miss football – he and Cody were going to Disneyland. A second time when they skipped football, JP wrote me sarcastically but with affection: "Lame excuse. I'm a lawyer and I can smell BS stories a mile away. This kid was sitting at home with his new love."

Anthony and Cody quickly became fixtures at football and the other players gravitated towards them. They were fun and full of life and love, and Anthony (who could be grumpy at times) was a much looser person with Cody. When Cyd and I picked our Outsports flag football team for the 2006 Gay Games, Anthony was one of the first people invited.

The Gay Games were something special for Anthony. He was going to play in a tournament with other gay athletes and he could bring his boyfriend along without fear or shame. Younger than everyone else by six years, he became our team's little brother.

On the field at the Gay Games, Anthony was a star. Playing receiver and defensive back, he caught the go-ahead touchdown in the gold medal game, and added an interception in the end zone to boot. In a close win a day earlier he made a catch on fourth down that was so amazing that people just screamed "that's sick!" when he came down with it. Watching Anthony receive his gold medal from teammate Esera Tuaolo gave me goose bumps; two out jocks, separated by a generation but bonded nonetheless.

Anthony loved USC football, his 1999 Mazda Miata 10th anniversary edition, his No. 10 jersey and postgame trips to Tommy's burgers with Cody. I will miss him terribly.

Scotland

Anatomy of an Insult

Anatomy of an Insult: ABC Is Stung by an Actor’s Anti-Gay Slurs

By EDWARD WYATT
January 22, 2007
New York Times

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 21 — Executives at ABC and its parent, Disney, are mulling the future of the actor Isaiah Washington, a star of the hit series “Grey’s Anatomy,” after Mr. Washington last week publicly used an anti-gay slur for the second time in roughly three months, a Disney executive said Friday.

The situation has potentially great implications for ABC, which is reaping millions of dollars in advertising revenues from a show that, in its third season, is among the highest rated on television.

The executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because company officials were instructed not to go beyond a prepared statement, said that Mr. Washington’s behavior could be considered grounds for dismissal under Disney’s corporate antidiscrimination policy.

ABC and Touchstone, Disney’s television studio, called Mr. Washington’s behavior “unacceptable” in a statement issued on Thursday, three days after Mr. Washington’s most recent remark, which occurred in the backstage press room at the Golden Globes ceremony last week.

Mr. Washington later apologized for the remark and said that he was seeking help for “issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul.” But the damage might be done for Mr. Washington, 43, who portrays Dr. Preston Burke on “Grey’s Anatomy,” which this season has attracted an audience of more than 18 million viewers each week, according to Nielsen Media Research. On Thursday, the first broadcast since the show won for best dramatic television series at the Golden Globes, the audience numbered nearly 22 million, according to ABC.

Mr. Washington first got into trouble for using the same slur during an off-camera dispute on the set of the show in October. The remark was aimed at T. R. Knight, who portrays Dr. George O’Malley on the series and who had not previously talked publicly about his sexuality. It followed a brief fight between Mr. Washington and a third actor on the show, Patrick Dempsey. After that incident became public, Mr. Washington apologized, and Mr. Knight publicly acknowledged that he was gay. The October fight has continued to be the subject of gossip around the show, and after the Golden Globe victory for “Grey’s Anatomy,” the show’s actors and creator gathered backstage to answer reporters’ questions. One asked about the fight and the remark.

Mr. Washington moved to the microphone and denied that he ever used the slur to describe Mr. Knight, at the same time repeating the word. Fellow cast members who were with Mr. Washington appeared shaken, quickly going from jubilant to solemn. After the awards show another “Grey’s” actor, Katherine Heigl, publicly repudiated Mr. Washington’s remarks.

Mr. Knight appeared on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” on Wednesday and disputed Mr. Washington’s denial of using the slur in October.

As discussion of the incidents grew, Mr. Washington remained silent until after ABC issued a statement chastising him.

“We have a longstanding policy to create and maintain respectful workplaces for all our employees,” the ABC statement said. “We dealt with the original situation in October, and thought the issue resolved. Therefore, we are greatly dismayed that Mr. Washington chose to use such inappropriate language at the Golden Globes, language that he himself deemed ‘unfortunate’ in his previous public apology. We take this situation very seriously. His actions are unacceptable and are being addressed.”

An ABC spokeswoman declined to comment on how the issue was addressed in October and what steps were being considered now.

After ABC issued its statement, Mr. Washington again apologized, after first firing his publicist. He expressed his regret to Mr. Knight, colleagues, fans “and especially the lesbian and gay community for using a word that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance.”

The statement appeared to acknowledge that Mr. Washington had used the slur before, despite his most recent denial. “By repeating the word Monday night, I marred what should have been a perfect night for everyone who works on ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ ” the statement said. “I can neither defend nor explain my behavior. I can also no longer deny to myself that there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul, and I’ve asked for help.

“I know the power of words, especially those that demean,” the statement continued. “I realize that by using one filled with disrespect I have hurt more than T. R. and my colleagues. With one word, I’ve hurt everyone who has struggled for the respect so many of us take for granted. I welcome the chance to meet with leaders of the gay and lesbian community to apologize in person and to talk about what I can do to heal the wounds I’ve opened.”

Mr. Washington added: “T. R.’s courage throughout this entire episode speaks to his tremendous character. I hold his talent, and T. R. as a person, in high esteem. I know a mere apology will not end this, and I intend to let my future actions prove my sincerity.”

Neil G. Giuliano, the president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, told CNN on Friday that he expected to travel to Los Angeles this week to meet with ABC executives and Mr. Washington.

Kelly Mullens, Mr. Washington’s new publicist, declined to comment on Mr. Washington’s plans for a meeting or his expected future with the show.

“Grey’s Anatomy” ranks fifth overall among prime-time shows. It ranks second overall among viewers ages 18 to 49, the demographic group for which networks charge the highest advertising premium.

Showtime

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
January 2, 2007

By JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI
Steilacoom, Wash.

TWO weeks ago, President Bush called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces. As our leaders consider various options for carrying out Mr. Bush’s vision, one issue likely to generate fierce debate is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that bars openly gay service members from the military. Indeed, leaders in the new Congress are planning to re-introduce a bill to repeal the policy next year.

As was the case in 1993 — the last time the American people thoroughly debated the question of whether openly gay men and lesbians should serve in the military — the issue will give rise to passionate feelings on both sides. The debate must be conducted with sensitivity, but it must also consider the evidence that has emerged over the last 14 years.

When I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I supported the current policy because I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true. The concern among many in the military was that given the longstanding view that homosexuality was incompatible with service, letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion.

In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve.

The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has.

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

But if America is ready for a military policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, the timing of the change should be carefully considered. As the 110th Congress opens for business, some of its most urgent priorities, like developing a more effective strategy in Iraq, share widespread support that spans political affiliations. Addressing such issues could help heal the divisions that cleave our country. Fighting early in this Congress to lift the ban on openly gay service members is not likely to add to that healing, and it risks alienating people whose support is needed to get this country on the right track.

By taking a measured, prudent approach to change, political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation’s most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose.

John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997.

Birds do it, bees do it . . .

Is homosexuality natural?
Martin Fletcher
Timesonline.com

Our correspondent reports from Oslo on a new exhibition that appears to debunk the theory that homosexuality is an exclusively human preference


Dr Linda Wolfe
The author is Chair of the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University


It is not what you would expect to see when you take your children on a Sunday outing to the natural history museum: a giant photograph of one male giraffe humping another, or two whales sparring with giant penises. This, however, is Norway, where — for better or worse — the normal rules do not apply. Three years ago the Government told the country’s museums and libraries that they should do more to contribute to social debates and dare to tackle taboo subjects.

The results of that order are now coming through. One museum is staging an exhibition that debunks the national myth that every Norwegian was an heroic Resistance fighter in the Second World War. A second is planning an exhibition on Vidkun Quisling, the ultimate Norwegian collaborator. A third has an exhibition showing how badly Norway has treated Gypsies.

But the Natural History Museum in Oslo has gone one better. As America’s religious right fulminates against homosexuality, Europe embraces gay marriage, and leading homosexuals such as Martina Navratilova denounce scientists in Oregon for attempting to make gay sheep straight, the Naturhistorisk Museum is stepping squarely into the heart of a controversy that dates back to at least AD1120 when the Church Council of Nablus described homosexuality as a “sin against nature” .

It is staging a government-financed exhibition in its august halls that shows that homosexuality — far from being unnatural — is actually rampant in the animal world. Against Nature? is the first exhibition in the world dedicated to gay animals, claims Petter Bockman, its bearded and ponytailed scientific adviser, who also happens to be the University of Oslo’s leading — and only — frog expert (there are not many amphibians, gay or straight, this far north).

The facts have been staring scientists in the face for years, Bockman says, as he stands in front of the gay giraffes. “It’s fairly easy to see because the giraffe’s sex organs are not what you’d call modest.” The problem, he contends, is that when researchers are confronted by such behaviour, they choose to ignore it. They claim it is irrelevant to their work, or fear ridicule or the loss of their grants if they draw attention to it. They prefer to describe two animals of the same sex frolicking with each other as “competition, a form of greeting, ritualised combat, things like that — even when we are talking full anal intercourse with ejaculation”.

The taboo was finally broken in 1999 when Bruce Bagemihl, a gay biologist at the University of Wisconsin, published a book entitled Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.

Bagemihl had scoured every scientific journal and paper he could lay his hands on for references to homosexuality in animals. Tucked away at the end of long and erudite texts, or consigned to footnotes and appendices, he found that homosexuality had been observed in no fewer than 1,500 species, and well documented in 500 of them. The earliest mention of animal homosexuality probably came 2,300 years ago when Aristotle described two female hyenas cavorting with each other.

Bagemihl’s book provided the inspiration for this exhibition, and any notion that homosexuality is a uniquely human trait is quickly disposed of. You are greeted by a pair of swans — the very symbols of romantic love — who turn out to be a female couple. “Up to a fifth of all pairs are all male or all female,” reads the accompanying text.

Then you come to the photograph of the whales “penis fencing” above which hang — for no apparent reason — two actual whale penises, both several feet long and looking like stretched and desiccated turnips. Some of the male whales meet year after year, says Bockman, while their relations with females are fleeting at best.

A model — the one that invariably draws most giggles from the exhibition’s younger visitors — shows a male Amazonian river dolphin penetrating another’s blowhole. “This is the only example of nasal sex we have in nature,” Brockman observes.

Up to a fifth of all king penguin couples kept in captivity are gay, we learn from a display of stuffed penguins wearing pink scarves. Hooded seagulls, sea otters, fish, kangaroos, fruit bats, blue jays, storks, pine martens and owls make guest appearances. So does the lowly hedgehog (ouch).

Male and female bighorn sheep apparently unite during the rutting season, but the rest of the year the males stick together and homosexuality flourishes. “The females are boring. Only the males do it,” says Brockman. Insects, spiders, molluscs, crustaceans — they’re all at it. There is an 1896 sketch of two male scarab beetles enjoying each other. There are even gay gutworms; we know that, Brockman says, because “ they have sex organs and since they are translucent, it’s easy to find out what sex they are”.

Round a corner and you are confronted by a photograph of two female bonobo chimpanzees lovingly rubbing their swollen genitalia against each other while their offspring look on. “Their whole life revolves around sex,” Brockman explains with his trademark enthusiasm. “They will throw themselves into group sex and gender doesn’t seem to be relevant. Even children will give a helping hand.”

The exhibition then uses macaques and apes to introduce the unsuspecting visitor to the practice of “diddling”, in which the primates gently hold each other’s scrotums. It is a way of establishing trust, Brockman suggests. Certainly you would not allow yourself to be diddled by someone you did not trust. The exhibition gives short shrift to the idea that animals have sex simply to reproduce, and they manifestly do not consider gay sex sinful. They do it, Brockman suggests, partly for fun and partly because it serves as a “binding mechanism” for herds and flocks.

The more social the species, the more likely it is to engage in homosexual activity, the exhibition argues. “Many social animals have complex social systems where individuals seek out allies for help and protection. Sex is an important way of strengthening the alliance, also between animals of the same sex. In some animals, the whole species is bisexual, and homosexual relationships are prerequisite for joining a pack, making heterosexuality a disadvantage.” As with humans, the homosexual partnerships of some animals are often for life, not fleeting dalliances. Male flamingoes, swans and other birds will sometimes have one-night stands with females to produce eggs, then chase off the mother and rear the offspring with another male.

There is only one known example of animals rejecting homosexuals. Blacktail deer will drive away those of their species known as perukes, who do not shed their antlers because of a hormonal condition and tend to be homosexual.
The exhibition ends, predictably, with humans — though it rather prudishly refrains from showing pictures of gay men or women in the act. “Compared to the other apes, human homosexuality is neither extremely frequent, nor particularly rare, and in our species too the practice varies from one culture to the next,” it says.

There is also, prominently displayed, a quotation from Magnus Enquist, a professor of ethology at Stockholm University: “There are things that are more contrary to nature than homosexuality, things humans alone do — such as having religion or sleeping in pyjamas.” Bockman says he believes the exhibition should end the debate about whether homosexuality is unnatural. He readily admits it is “political” in intent, and even in Norway, where shoolchildren are taught about homosexuality from the age of 13, it has attracted huge publicity. But apart from a few lone voices on the religious right — one preacher hoped the organisers would “burn in hell”, another priest said the money would be better spent on curing gay animals — the public’s response has been overwhelmingly positive.

The museum’s attendance figures have soared in the month since the exhibition opened. It has received hundreds of e-mails from around the world, many from foreigners lamenting their own countries’ repressive attitude to homosexuality. The exhibition’s visitors book is full of similar sentiments. “Very interesting themes you are bringing up,” read one unsigned message, before adding: “PS, We had sex in the hall on the top floor of your museum.” Brockman was delighted. “Apparently someone got inspired,” he chuckled.

‘IT GIVES THEM PLEASURE’

It looks like a good exhibition, though Against Nature? is an unfortunate name. Homosexual behaviour is not against nature, it is part of the repertoire of what animals do. That does not necessarily mean that you can compare it directly to human homosexuality.

Technically, a homosexual person is someone who has homoerotic fantasies and engages in homosexual sex. The distinction between what goes on in the brain and the behaviour itself is important: just seeing human behaviour does not necessarily say anything about the thoughts or fantasies behind it. There are people whose fantasies are homoerotic but who engage in heterosexual behaviour. There are people who have heterosexual fantasies but engage in homosexual behaviour — that happens in prison, particularly the men who do the penetrating: they never see themselves as homosexual and when they get out of prison they go back to heterosexual behaviour.

When we are talking about animals, because we don’t know the eroticism behind it, all we can say is they are engaging in homosexual behaviour. Even then, people have tried to explain away homosexual behaviour in animals as something else entirely. Homosexual behaviour between male mammals has been dismissed as boisterous; as for females, people have argued that they don’t know what they are doing, that they are just advertising their availability to males. There is a million of these sorts of explanations out there but not one holds water if, for example, you study Japanese macaque monkeys.

I studied a transplanted colony in Texas, and later a colony in Japan. Homosexual behaviour occurred during the mating season and followed the same rules as heterosexual behaviour. You don’t see brothers doing it, or grandmothers and granddaughters — there is the same avoidance of incest.

But I have seen males with erections sit next to females and be ignored, the female going off with another female. I have also seen female monkeys in early stages of pregnancy engaging in homosexual and heterosexual behaviour, which indicates that their sexual behaviour is not strictly controlled by hormones, and must be conscious behaviour.

Mammals have larger brains than other vertebrates, which means their behaviour is more complicated. It allows them to engage in more conscious behaviour, and to act on their desires. It allows them to seek pleasure, and this is what they are doing when they engage in homosexual behaviour. Trying to explain this behaviour as something other than homosexual behaviour is just another part of our prudishness.

Theater District Will Get Taller, if Not Richer

August 6, 2006
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
Via NYTimes.com

The hottest thing on Broadway these days may be the air above some of its most famous theaters.

During the city’s real estate boom, theater owners have started capitalizing on a special zoning arrangement created eight years ago that lets them sell their unused rights to add to their buildings’ height. Developers can transfer these air rights to other sites in the theater district and construct taller buildings than would otherwise be allowed.

Two pending transfers of air rights promise an added benefit that was crucial to the original approval of that arrangement: As much as $1.4 million is supposed to be set aside to help the theater community, by attracting new patrons or underwriting serious drama.

But there’s a snag. Though two developers — who are buying the air rights for more than $20 million — are ready to hand over the special payments, the city government is not prepared to accept them. It never created the fund to hold the money or the council that is supposed to oversee it. As a result, it is not clear if the theater community will ever directly benefit from the windfall.

Others, meanwhile, are maneuvering to get the money. The Board of Education has raised its hand for the first payments from developers, most of which it would use to improve auditoriums in public schools, city officials said.

Jack Goldstein, who was working for Actors’ Equity Association, a union of actors and stagehands, in 1998, when the arrangement was set up, said diverting the money to schools would violate pledges made to bolster what was then a fragile theater economy.

“There was a promise that was made to the theater community and the public, and I think it should be kept, and I think it can be,” Mr. Goldstein said.

Neighborhood leaders in the vicinity of the theater district are also wary that the money may be sent elsewhere.

“Our community has a big proportion of working actors, so we want this to go to people who actually work in and support the theater,” said J. Lee Compton, the chairman of Manhattan Community Board 4, whose territory includes one of the theaters that is selling its unused development rights.

The long-running debate about how to spend this potential stream of revenue from developers illustrates how much the theater business and the New York City real estate market have changed since the late 1990’s.

Back then, theater owners and Broadway luminaries, including Stephen Sondheim and Tony Randall, campaigned for financial aid for an ailing industry. They feared that empty theaters and a paucity of new plays signaled worsening prospects for high-quality drama.

The city’s response was to change zoning rules in 1998, allowing the owners of 25 Broadway houses to transfer their air rights anywhere within a 34-block zone north of 40th Street between Avenue of the Americas and Eighth Avenue. (Normally, air rights can be transferred only to contiguous building sites.)

To transfer development rights from a theater to a distant site, the buyers were required to pay an extra $10 per square foot on top of the regular purchase price for the air rights. The money was to be administered by a new Theater Subdistrict Council, with 20 percent to be set aside for monitoring the physical condition of the theaters. The rest was to be used to benefit the theater community by subsidizing tickets to shows for poorer city residents or by offering loans or grants to producers of serious plays.

But until this year, no theater owner had taken advantage of the air-rights provision. In the past eight years, attendance has rebounded as the public appetite has grown for serious shows like “Doubt” and “The History Boys.” The Broadway Initiative, a theater-advocacy group Mr. Sondheim presided over, disbanded and the movement to find alternative sources of financing for plays faded out.

At the same time, demand increased for places to build apartment buildings close to Times Square. Few lots in the theater district can accommodate big buildings without a transfer of air rights. So, lately, developers have been knocking on the doors of the theater owners.

At the northeast corner of 46th Street and Eighth Avenue, a New Jersey-based builder, S.J.P. Residential, plans to erect a 42-story condominium tower on the former site of McHale’s pub. To do that, S.J.P. arranged to acquire about 140,000 square feet of air rights from two Broadway theaters, the Brooks Atkinson around the corner and the Al Hirschfeld, which is more than a block away.

The deal with the Brooks Atkinson, which is owned by the Nederlander Organization, did not fall under the special zoning rules created in 1998, but the pending purchase of the Hirschfeld’s air rights does. This week, the City Planning Commission is scheduled to vote to authorize the second of two transfers of air rights from the Hirschfeld, which is owned by Jujamcyn Theaters, to the McHale’s site.

If approved by the Planning Commission and then the City Council, the sales of the Hirschfeld’s air rights would yield about $580,000 for the Theater Subdistrict Fund. A third piece of the Hirschfeld’s air rights, along with a larger bundle of air rights from another Jujamcyn theater, the St. James, are being acquired by the developer of a site on 54th Street between Broadway and Eighth Avenue. Combined, the transactions would produce about $1.4 million for the theater fund.

“This is a unique transaction,” said Paul Libin, producing director of Jujamcyn. “They could have come and knocked on our door earlier, but there was no reason for them to do it.” But now, he added, “There’s a boom going on in New York, and I suppose that’s why people knocked on our door.”

After these sales, whose terms Mr. Libin declined to disclose, Jujamcyn would have no significant development rights left to sell, he said. The air rights for the company’s other theaters were sold before the 1998 zoning change took effect, he said.

“Selling the air rights is all about perpetuating the Broadway theater,” Mr. Libin said.

But, he added, “circumstances have changed so dramatically” that using money from developers to finance productions now “doesn’t make any sense at all.”

Alan Eisenberg, the executive director of Actors’ Equity, noted that the original promise made in 1998 could still be met by giving the developers’ payments to the Theater Development Fund, which sells discounted play tickets to attract a broader audience.

The City Planning Department’s staff, however, favors giving most of the money expected from the special transfers — more than $1.1 million — to two programs run by the city’s Board of Education, said Edith Hsu-Chen, deputy director in the department’s Manhattan office. One, known as Arts Space, makes grants to public schools to upgrade their performance facilities. Another aims to stage summer musical productions starring public high school students.

“One of the key purposes of the theater subdistrict zoning is to develop new audiences,” Ms. Hsu-Chen said. “What better way to accomplish this than to link kids directly to Broadway as active participants?”

The school programs are pet projects of Gerald Schoenfeld, chairman of the Shubert Organization, which owns or operates 17 Broadway theaters.

Still, Meile Rockefeller, co-chairwoman of the land-use committee of Manhattan Community Board 5, said the schools proposals were “fine as a short-term remedy for a problem that caught the city unprepared.” But, she added, “It’s not a long-term solution.”

Same-Sex Marriage Wins by Losing

By DAN SAVAGE

Seattle

THERE were community meetings in Seattle on Wednesday. Some of the couples who had sued to overturn Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage, a case they lost before the state’s Supreme Court earlier that day, were going to appear. Gay and straight elected officials who support “marriage equality” were going to make speeches. I probably should have been there too.

But I had a previous engagement.

The Seattle Mariners were playing the Toronto Blue Jays at Safeco Field. My 8-year-old son — adopted at birth by my boyfriend and me — loves the M’s almost as much as he hates the way a breaking news story can keep me late at work. He would never have forgiven me for skipping the game.

I didn’t feel too bad about missing the meetings. Washington’s high court rejected same-sex marriage for much the same reason the New York Court of Appeals did earlier this month. The speeches in Seattle would no doubt be similar to those made in New York, and I didn’t need to hear them again.

Basically, both courts found that marriage is like a box of Trix: It’s for kids.

In New York, the court ruled in effect that irresponsible heterosexuals often have children by accident — we gay couples, in contrast, cannot get drunk and adopt in one night — so the state can reserve marriage rights for heterosexuals in order to coerce them into taking care of their offspring. Without the promise of gift registries and rehearsal dinners, it seems, many more newborns in New York would be found in trash cans.

At least the New York court acknowledged that many same-sex couples have children. Washington’s judges went out of their way to make ours disappear, finding that “limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.” Children, the decision continues, “tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother and their biological children.’’

A concurring opinion gave the knife a few leisurely twists: due to the “binary biological nature of marriage,” it read, only opposite-sex couples are capable of “responsible child rearing.”

These stunning statements fly in the face of the evidence about gay and lesbian parents presented to the court. Similar evidence persuaded the high court in Arkansas to overturn that state’s ban on gay and lesbian foster parents.

What the New York and Washington opinions share — besides a willful disregard for equal protection clauses in both state Constitutions — is a heartless lack of concern for the rights of the hundreds of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples.

Even if gay couples who adopt are more stable, as New York found, don’t their children need the security and protections that the court believes marriage affords children? And even if heterosexual sex is essential to the survival of the human race (a point I’m willing to concede), it’s hard to see how preventing gay couples from marrying increases heterosexual activity. (“Keep breeding, heterosexuals,” the Washington State Supreme Court in effect shouted, “To bed! To bed! To bed!”) Both courts have found that my son’s parents have no right to marry, but what of my son’s right to have married parents?

A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child’s life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all — or once they’ve had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them — unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking “special rights.”

Even if you believe that marriage plays a special role in the lives of heterosexuals with children (another point I’m happy to concede), can it not play a similar role in the lives of homosexual couples, whether they’re parents or not? Marriage, after all, is not reserved for couples with children. (Perhaps it will be soon, if courts keep heading in this direction.)

When my widowed grandfather remarried in his 60’s, he wasn’t seeking to further the well-being of his children, who were grown and out of the house. He was seeking the security, companionship and legal rights that marriage provides. The survival of humankind was the furthest thing from his mind.

These defeats have demoralized supporters of gay marriage, but I see a silver lining. If heterosexual instability and the link between heterosexual sex and human reproduction are the best arguments opponents of same-sex marriage can muster, I can’t help but feel that our side must be winning. Insulting heterosexuals and discriminating against children with same-sex parents may score the other side a few runs, but these strategies won’t win the game.

So I’m confident that one day my son will live in a country that allows his parents to marry. His parents are already married, as far as he’s concerned, as my boyfriend and I tied the knot in Canada more than a year and a half ago. We recognize, even if the courts do not, that it’s in his best interest for us to be married.

And while Wednesday was a dark day, the M’s beat the Blue Jays 7 to 4, so it wasn’t a total loss.

Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company